The President has spent vast sums on "stimulus" programs that have done nothing to revive the economy. However, the White House has now chosen to address the deficit by slashing a federal program that truly does provide a vital service to the nation, and that historically has had a positive effect on the economy: the military.
The cuts will, unfortunately, affect muscle, not fat. The White House chose to ignore an inefficient and bloated procurement process that hurts more than helps the armed services. Mr. Obama also chose to ignore a political process where elected officials hike the cost of needed weapons systems by holding back their support unless contracts for frequently unnecessary "bells and whistles" that just happen to be made in their districts are included.
On January 3, the White House published its key position paper "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." The new policy totally overturns America's deterrence position, which has prevented another world war for over a half century.
By repudiating the national defense requirement that the nation be prepared to fight a two front conflict, it places the US in danger of being incapable to deal with simultaneous crises in different parts of the world.
The primary accomplishment of the new policy is a sharply reduced armed force, including a reduction in personnel by over a third, and a slashing of our last-ditch nuclear deterrent by eliminating a third of our nuclear sub force. The cuts may not end there; another $600 billion could be eliminated from the defense budget unless savings are found elsewhere in the federal government. This is on top of the sharp reductions our military has already endured over the years. Since 1990, the Navy has been cut from 600 ships to 288, the Army from 18 divisions to 10, and the USAF from 37 combat wings to 20.
Those advocating a reduced defense budget cling to the incorrect notion that US military spending is larger than the combined budgets of several of our adversaries. That oft-stated cliché is totally incorrect. For example, most of China's defense budget both openly excludes numerous items that the U.S. considers military-related, and secretly hides vast expenditures in other budget lines.
Obama's position depends on a "best case" scenario. In its summary of how to maintain a viable nuclear deterrent, the policy statement notes: "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy." This wishful thinking has guided much of the Obama Administration's nuclear policy. It has surrendered to Moscow on antimissile radar deployment in Europe, and in its ABM policy in general. It has virtually ignored China's soaring nuclear capability, Russia's return to belligerence, North Korea's atomic threats, and Iran's eagerness to use nuclear weapons.
An example of the intellectual dishonesty that prevails in the White House can be seen in the Administration's policy towards fighter aircraft. The F-22 program was drastically scaled back, using the excuse that the less costly F-35 would do the job as well. The administration then cut back the F-35, too. The end result is that many of our pilots will be flying deteriorating craft older than they are.
The same holds true for land-based systems. Due to a failure to replace older and less capable artillery systems in the prior administration, our army now must face the reality of being outgunned on the field of battle.
The President's new policy is not a slight change; it is a dramatic and unprecedented shift in a concept that has kept us safe since 1945. Estimates are that further cuts in defense spending could cost New York State 26,000 jobs, and harm 2,707 small businesses.
It deserves a far more critical analysis than it has been given by either the press or in Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment